Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Internet Relay Chat/Archive 1

IRC and this project

The official word about the IRC channel: Joining is optional. However, you will put yourself at a disadvantage if you are not on IRC, as discussions are made regarding issues at this project that may not be discussed on Wikipedia as well.

For myself, I found IRC a few months ago and would not go without it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, and what makes this the official word? Seriously, I stand by what I say above. It's okay for minor behind-the-scenes changes, but anything major absolutely must be done by consensus-building discussion onwiki. -- NORTH ^talk 06:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about no?

Continuous online presence should not be a requirement of contributions to Wikipedia. You can leave tons of messages on my talk page if you feel like you must, and between 10 AM and 5 PM on weekdays is the usually the only way I'll respond quickly if I happen to be editing that day. —Rob (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any policy changes absolutely must be discussed onwiki, I believe according to IRC (though someone else will have to check for me, an overhyper school filter is blocking me). IRC is best suited to early consensus-building, testing the waters to see if it's even a good idea, and fostering collaboration in editing articles. No policy changes can be implemented solely on IRC. —Scott5114 ↗ 15:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what exactly is the purpose of the channel? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that official stuff should occur here. Besides, when I get on is highly variable and occur at any time, i.e. when I am up at 4 in the morning feeding my 2 month old son. If announcements were made here on when meetings were to occur on IRC, that would be beneficial. --Holderca1 16:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, TMF, Rschen, and myself will do that next time. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 16:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:IRC, "As far as their influence on Wikipedia goes, IRC is equivalent to e-mail, or a conversation in a pub: chat is a private conversation which, in ordinary circumstances, has no effect on how one is treated on Wikipedia." The main Wikipedia channels are intended to be used for minor things, reporting vandalism and the like. Nothing crucial is discussed on IRC as far as I can tell. The US Roads channel should be no different. Had the maint parameter been implemented better and I hadn't noticed all the redlinks it caused, this certainly would have qualified. But any major policy changes (i.e. the recent discussion on the exit list guide) must be made onwiki, regadless of whether or not Vishwin's announcement goes out. I spend enough time on Wikipedia, I'm not going to spend time on IRC as well, and I'm sure I'm not alone. -- NORTH ^talk 21:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? As TMF has said above, what would be the purpose of the channel? The most crucial things, like the exit list debate, should be discussed on IRC, since from past experiences with these kinds of discussions, nothing ever gets done. On IRC, though, when an idea is formed, and consensus is reached quickly, it is implemented quicker as well. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 21:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the channel is discuss minor things off-wiki. If you make major decisions off-wiki with three people, then you don't have consensus. And even if you do, you don't have a consensus-building discussion to point to afterwards.

If the exit list guide were discussed on IRC with me and MPD, we certainly could have gotten it closed immediately, but who would have been happy? The two of us, maybe, and that's it. -- NORTH ^talk 21:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The underlying problem though is that nothing on IRC is documented here. No one can see consensus developing discussion. Not everyone is available at the same time either, so if I can't make it to a discussion, my opinion doesn't count? 6 months from now, if someone questions that consensus, they have nothing to go to see, "oh that's why they decided that." Minor things are fine to have discussions on IRC, but lets leave the major things here. --Holderca1 21:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Then we'd log the discussion on IRC. Although the channel topic says "No public logging", we can log it to preserve the discussion that didn't happen on-wiki. And TMF agrees, 100%. Plus the underlying effect with edit conflicts... V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 21:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's exactly it. "And TMF agrees, 100%"??? I assume there's a discussion on IRC going on as we speak? Why didn't you announce the discussion ahead of time? Yes, of course that's being dickish of me, but hopefully you can see my point.

The purpose of talk pages is to give everyone a chance to comment – usually over a period of five days or so – regardless of whether or not they have any extra software, regardless of whether or not they're actually a part of the project and know about the IRC channel.

I'm curious as to why no one's answered my question. Why would IRC have benefited the exit list guide discussion? -- NORTH ^talk 23:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I see no benefit to this. All I see is it paring down the number of people who will have a chance to comment. --Sable232 00:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone...just calm down, ok? It's not a big deal; someone said something that they thought was a good idea and people disagreed. We should be used to that by now (dry humour). IRC is a great place to just chat and collaborate...at least I'd think so, I can't get on. Nothing works. I got on at home, I think it's our school network. So just everyone take a deep breath and relax a minute. NORTH, IRC could have benefitted the exit list discussion for example when you and I were hashing out an agreement. It would have been much easier than making changes, waiting three hours, and hoping we were on the same page (on both sides). Then we could have presented more agreements faster. I think it was fine as it was on-Wiki, it just took a long time to collaborate. Instead of finding new places to talk, why don't we work on getting some contributers back? Even if that means there will be more people to comment about IRC (ha). breathe. --MPD^{T / C} 01:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MPD. In reply to NORTH, TMF actually did agree 100% while we were discussing about this thread. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 01:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that I didn't believe you about TMF's agreement. I was merely making a point – why were you having a discussion on IRC about it when it would have been more effective to have TMF post here in his own words about his agreement?

And yes, that is a way the ELG discussion could have benefited from IRC, but only if it were used to supplement the on-wiki discussion, not instead of. The way I originally posed the question was different. Imagine, MPD, if you and I had discussed the ELG on IRC alone, and then implemented the changes the way the maint parameter was done. It would have been the biggest disaster we've seen since the move wars.

I'm sure it is a great place to chat and collaborate. But chatting and collaborating are very different from changing policy. Let me make something clear, since I probably didn't originally. I have absolutely no problem with people using IRC as a tool of convenience. I do have a problem with the first message in this thread, that is, if IRC is being used to put other editors at a disadvantage. -- NORTH ^talk 06:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with North 100% on this one. Let's put this example out there for you to see if it helps to see our side of this a little more clearer. Say, the members on IRC discussed this discussion on IRC without ever mentioning that on wiki other than putting the final decision on the project page (not the talk). That would make the "consensus" arrived at extremely biased. Even if the IRC discussions are logged and posted here, that should only supplement a discussion here, it wouldn't prevent the problem of limiting who is in on the discussion. Not all of us can be on here every minute of the day, heck not all of us can be on here every day. I think discussions of minor issues are fine to occur on IRC. Major discussions should mainly occur here with at least a week of review. IRC of this discussion can still go on pertaining to the topic, but a summary of that discussion should be placed in the wiki discussion for everyone to review. --Holderca1 15:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]